How does this sound for a bad-news proposal? Stretch a 232-mile pipeline across forests and backyards, old-growth cedars and mushroom-sided streams, halfway across the state. Gouge the forest. Scar it. Fill said pipeline with natural gas—one of the dirtiest fuels available to us. Build a terminal in Coos Bay. Convert natural gas to liquid—AKA liquefied natural gas (LNG). Ship LNG to Asia. Stand at the edge of the wide Pacific and know that, across from it, the fuels will be burned and the greenhouse gases will rise and glisten and warm, and the entire world will be altered by it, perhaps beyond all retrieval.

This proposed export facility (at first intended to be an import facility) was named the Jordan Cove Energy Project, and for over a decade its impending construction was fervently opposed by environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club. Activists held protests and raised awareness, collaborating with landowners whose properties would have been intersected by the adjoining Pacific Connector Pipeline. Their hard work paid off when, on Friday, March 11, the project’s application was denied by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

According to the FERC report, the denial has been issued “because the record does not support a finding that the public benefits of the Pacific Connector Pipeline outweigh the adverse effects on landowners.” And because the Jordan Cove export facility would be useless without the Pacific Connector Pipeline feeding it natural gas, FERC denied that application as well.

This is a victory for the many volunteers involved, for the communities who would have been impacted by eminent domain, and, of course, for the environment. Had the pipeline been approved, its construction would have led to expansive clear-cuts, denuding streams of important riparian shade that salmon and other fish rely on, and reducing habitat for endangered species like the northern spotted owl. Had the oceanside export facility also been approved, the Coos Bay estuary would have been dredged and degraded, negatively impacting already fragile marine life.

The FERC denial is a good sign, but it’s not the end; there’s still a chance that the proposal could be reconsidered if the companies behind it—Veresen Inc. and Williams Partners—are able to convince officials of the market value and economic need of their project during the rehearing process. In fact, the entire approvals process is a complicated, many-stepped ordeal involving multiple permits and regulating agencies, both state and federal.

There are still many permits pending with various agencies of the State of Oregon, and it is not clear that those processes will be halted just because of the FERC denial. In order to ensure that the Jordan Cove Energy Project is killed, officially and completely, we need to continue voicing our own disapproval by contacting Governor Kate Brown and asking her to support the FERC decision and shut down the project for good. See volunteer leader Ted Gleichman’s blog post for more info!

Yesterday President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy revealed the Clean Power Plan. As McCarthy put it, it was “an incredibly wicked cool moment.” But what does it mean?

In short, the plan aims to reduce carbon pollution nation wide by 32% by 2030 by putting limits on how much carbon can be put into the atmosphere by power plants. This is the first time such limits have ever been set, truly a “wicked cool moment.” But I’m sure you want more than the short of it.

To help answer the question I’ve compiled information from a few great articles and sources (all at the bottom) from the internet for you. If you have others you like feel free to post in the comments or tweet at us, @ORsierraclub:

The Plan will cut carbon pollution that is fueling Climate Change:

Power Plants are the largest emitters of carbon pollution in the United States. They total about one third of all the emissions we generate. When fully implemented in 2030 the Clean Power Plan will reduce our carbon pollution by 870 million tons. That’s 166 million cars or 70% of our passenger vehicles off the road.

It will protect our health:

By 2030, each year there will be 3600 fewer premature deaths, 90,000 asthma attacks, 1700 heart attacks, and 300,000 missed days of school and work. That’s because when we limit carbon emissions we are also limiting 318,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 282,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide. Both gases contribute to soot and smog that make people sick.

It will help protect low income communities and communities of color:

The impacts of burning dirty fuels are disproportionately felt by low income communities and communities of color. Van Jones put it best in his CNN piece about the Plan: “The clean power plan will massively help minorities and low-income Americans. After all, one in six black kids and one in nine Latino children has asthma. Seventy-eight percent of African-Americans live within 30 miles of a dirty, polluting coal plant. African-Americans are also more likely to live in coastal areas and die during heat waves.” You should read his entire blog linked in the notes.

It will save us money on our utility bills:

When you total up the health and climate related benefits of the Clean Power Plan we’re looking at upwards of $45 billion of savings when fully implemented. That’s a lot of money that could be going to a lot of other great causes and issues. Bottom line, by 2030 the average American household can expect save around $7 a month on their utility bills. That’s not chump change.

It puts our state in the driver’s seat:

The Clean Power Plan sets carbon pollution standards for power plants across the country, but sets individual state goals based on each state’s current energy mix and what unique opportunities exist in each state. To make is easy the EPA has even created a model rule that states can adopt that guarantees their compliance with the Plan. If they don’t like that plan they can cut carbon pollution anyway they want as long as they meet the goals. This mean big opportunities to be leaders for states like Oregon.

We’ve got a good start to build from in Oregon:

Its Oregon’s time shine. We are already doing some things to move the energy sector to a fossil fuel free future and are on our way to meeting our goals in the Clean Power Plan, but there is a great deal more that needs to be done.

Renewable energy production in Oregon has grown 159% since 2008 and Oregon has a renewable portfolio standard that require utilities to generate 25% of their electricity with renewable sources by 2025. Our only coal fired power plant is already scheduled to go offline. Many Oregon cities and counties have climate plans of their own. Our Low Carbon Fuel Standard will reduce carbon pollution from our transportation sector.

More to do:

Did you know that Oregon already has goals to reduce our carbon pollution 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Unfortunately those are just goals and aren’t enforceable in any sector. We could challenge the nation and lead by making these goals rules rather than aspirations. Leading this way will spur clean energy and efficiency development and create a center for innovation here in Oregon and the economic benefits that come with it.

Utilities are also looking to replace their coal fired energy production with natural gas fired power plants instead of clean renewable energy. We must move away from fossil fuels, not toward them. Gas is not clean and added are the impacts of fracking and methane releases from wells. Natural gas is not a long term solution. We need our utilities to be planning for a fossil fuel free future.

Multinational corporations are also hoping that Oregon and the Pacific Northwest will be a tap for dirty fuels on the global market. We need our elected officials and state agencies to stand up and say “no way.” We have to decide if we want to talk about climate leadership or really show what that leadership looks like. We can’t talk about reducing our own carbon pollution while allowing big oil, gas, and coal to ship their dirty fuels around the globe for others to burn.

It is equally important that as we begin to comply with the Clean Power Plan and take further climate action that our changes are not burdens to low income communities or communities of color. These communities disproportionately are impacted by the negative consequences of our current energy system, both from climate change and pollution. Our Climate Action Plan should serve as a means to lessen those impacts on those most in need of relief, not add to them. In addition the benefits of clean energy should be shared equally and not go to further these inequalities and benefit some more than others.

I fully applaud the President and Administrator McCarthy for their leadership and for producing the Clean Power Plan. I also call on our elected officials to not rest here, to continue to lead and push for further carbon reductions and an end to the fossil fuel era. I also call on you to make sure elected officials are accountable for their actions or lack of action when it comes to climate. As the President said yesterday in his announcement “If we don’t do it nobody will.”

With overwhelming public opposition to LNG projects on the Columbia River, and a regulatory hurdle that could prove insurmountable, the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal may soon become the first of a series of proposed LNG infrastructure projects in Oregon to meet its demise.

Bradwood Landing backer NorthernStar Natural Gas recently demanded the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality grant the permit for Bradwood Landing without access to critical data about the project’s environmental impact. In response, the DEQ has indicated it may deny the permit unless NorthernStar comes through with more information. And at a Wednesday night DEQ hearing on the fate of Bradwood Landing, opponents of high-carbon LNG projects packed into the Knappa High School gymnasium to support the DEQ’s refusal to back down to energy speculators.

Upwards of two hundred people, nearly all opposed to LNG, crowded into the gymnasium to stand up for Oregon’s clean energy future and say no to LNG. The largest new fossil fuel infrastructure proposed in the Northwestern United States, LNG infrastructure projects like Bradwood Landing would open Oregon’s doors to a new high carbon foreign fossil fuel, compromising our state’s ability to become a leader in clean energy and reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels. On Wednesday night the DEQ got the message loud and clear from Oregon residents who attended the hearing: Oregon voters and taxpayers support the agency in holding NorthernStar to our state’s environmental standards, and urge the DEQ to deny permits for the Bradwood Landing terminal.

What was clear at the hearing was that opposition to LNG comes not just from landowners whose property stands to be immediately impacted by LNG infrastructure, but from a broad-based coalition that spans fishing families worried the Bradwood terminal will devastate salmon habitat, to rural jobs advocates standing up for jobs in the farming industry that stand to be lost to LNG pipelines, to environmentalists concerned about LNG’s carbon footprint and young people who will have to deal in years to come with the impacts of environmental decisions made today.

DEQ representatives there to take public comments heard from farmers who are dealing first-hand with the LNG’s lack of respect for landowners, families who have lived beside the Columbia River and enjoyed its natural beauty for decades, and environmental representatives from Columbia Riverkeeper and the Sierra Club who spoke about the devastating impact Bradwood Landing will have on salmon habitat. Despite the LNG industry’s frequent claims that projects like Bradwood Landing will benefit Oregon, Bradwood Landing’s backers failed to turn out more than a scattering of supporters who were completely overwhelmed by opponents of LNG. Based on who was willing to take time our of their evening and attend the DEQ’s hearing, where Oregon residents actually stand on LNG was quite clear.

This spring, the DEQ will likely make a final decision on whether or not to grant approval to Bradwood Landing. In so doing the agency can demonstrate its intent to listen to Oregon residents and not out-of-state corporations like NorthernStar, and set a precedent of denying permits to LNG companies that refuse to provided needed information about their project’s environmental impacts.

Though the DEQ’s final decision on Bradwood Landing is still pending, the agency’s insistence that NorthernStar must provide all the needed information about Bradwood Landing suggests the agency is truly willing to stand up for the rule of law. At least one thing is crystal clear: if the DEQ finally rejects NorthernStar’s application, state regulators will not only be doing the right thing to protect Oregon’s environment and economy, but will do so with the backing of a truly remarkable coalition of Oregonians determined to keep LNG out of this state.

Though the legislative session has just closed down for the year, the fight against LNG terminals and associated pipelines is still in full swing! The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has opened a Supplemental Scoping Period to gain public feedback on two alternate end routes for the Palomar Pipeline.

As it stands, the pipeline would extend from the Bradwood Landing LNG Terminal site on the Columbia River, through the Willamette Valley, and across Mt. Hood National Forest, crossing hundreds of waterways in its path. The two “alternative routes” do not provide any further protections to Mt. Hood National Forest, and would impact still more waterways in Oregon. The Maupin Bridge alternative puts the pipeline directly through the City of Maupin, while the Warm Springs alternative routes the pipeline through Warm Springs Reservation, including large areas of Crooked River National Grassland.

The introduction of two new alternative routes for the pipeline so close to the initial deadline for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) raises concerns that FERC will not adequately address the environmental impacts of the pipeline on the areas that the newly-introduced routes pass through. Just within the new alternatives, the problems of human health and safety, soil disruption in fragile scablands areas, threatened species’ habitat destruction, and conflicts with pre-existing land management plans, are all raised.

Below are sample comments, which you should feel free to copy and paste wholesale – consistency is the name of the game when submitting comments on Environmental Impact Statements.

Thanks for taking action, and stay tuned for further action points and events – we’re planning outings to the proposed terminal and pipeline sites at Bradwood Landing and in Mt. Hood National Forest in the coming months, and hope to see you there!

Filing Instructions:https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx
Clicking on the above link will bring you to the FERC “Quick Comment” page; you will need to enter your name and email address, FERC will send you an email very quickly, and you will need to click on the link within that email to continue the filing process. Enter the docket number in the appropriate field, click “Search,” and then “Select” for Docket Number CP09-35-000.

Sample Comments: Feel free to cut & paste any or all of these comments!

Docket Number: CP09-35-000

I am writing today as a concerned citizen to submit comments to the Supplemental Scoping Period for the Palomar Gas Transmission (Docket No. CP09-035-000). I see significant problems with the Palomar Pipeline’s proposed routes, and cannot condone the construction of a pipeline with such massive environmental and public safety impacts. These so-called “alternatives” are just two different ends the same bad story of needless degradation to the environment and to Oregonians’ quality of life.

The Maupin Bridge alternative route attempts to avoid crossing of the Deschutes River in a designated “wild and scenic” area. However, it’s shocking that the “alternative” route is right through the center of the city of Maupin. Maupin residents are concerned about how the pipeline would affect their quality of life – from the standpoints of safety, effects on tourism and recreation, and property values. And the second alternative – the Warm Springs route – presents devastating effects on Crooked River National Grassland. The pipeline would disrupt fragile scablands soil composition and threaten already-vulnerable species’ habitats in ways that cannot easily be restored. Furthermore, the Northern Warm Springs Alternative Route would place the Palomar pipeline outside of a designated utility corridor. This conflicts directly with the priorities and policies outlined in the Crooked River National Grassland Land Management Plan, which requires that all utility lines be within preexisting utility corridors.

In summary, neither of the two proposed alternatives truly mitigates the harm that the Palomar Gas Transmission pipeline would cause. This eastern section of the pipeline is still proposed to go through Mt. Hood National Forest, which is unacceptable to the people who rely on the National Forest for recreation; furthermore, both “alternatives” raise serious questions about the safety of the people and ecosystems that the pipeline would pass by and through. It is my hope that FERC will be able to adequately address these concerns in the DEIS.

HB 2015, the LNG Public Protection Act, is up for its first public hearing in the Oregon Legislature on Thursday, April 16.

Your help is needed to make sure the House Sustainability and Economic Development Committee passes this bill. Send a quick email to your legislature in support of HB 2015 by clicking here.

LNG is different from domestic natural gas. Its 20 – 30% more greenhouse gas intensive, and it would be imported from far way, and sometimes unfriendly, places like Russia, Qatar and Iran.

Oregon is currently threatened by three proposed LNG import terminals and hundreds of miles of pipelines that would cross high value farmland, forests and dozens of rivers and streams. The Palomar pipeline would cut a 47-mile swath across the Mt. Hood National Forest including the Wild and Scenic Clackamas River, the Deschutes River, and Fish Creek, recently designated as Wild and Scenic by the Omnibus Public Lands Act signed into law by President Obama. LNG pipelines have proven highly controversial among local citizens and goverments.

Its time for Oregon to stand up for itself in the debate over LNG by passing HB 2015.

The LNG Public Protection Act, HB 2015, has been introduced. Click here to send an email to your legislator.

This bill would protect Oregon from the multiple LNG terminals and hundreds of miles of pipelines that threaten Oregon’s rivers and streams, farmland, and forests. Find our more information on the threats that LNG poses to Oregon here.

DISCLAIMER

User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.